It is most effective against those who already believe in heaven and hell, such as theists who are angry with God.
Its common use against nonbelievers is puzzling - because to threaten someone with something that they don't believe in is utterly ineffective.

Counter apologetics

An effective counter apologetic would be to ask for proof of hell, or to threaten them with another religion's hell, and point out the similarity.
The threat of hell differs from Pascal's wager in several key respects:

Pascal's wager is an intellectual argument. The threat of hell is purely emotional.

With the threat of hell, hell is assumed to exist. Pascal's wager treats this as an unknown.